Gobble & Church-ill - Poisonous to the People

Power and control are what Churchill and Goebbels seem to have over their countries. If they are upfront about their county’s unstoppable power, if they’re the “roadblock” between evil and the rest of society, if they are preventing their country from being consumed in monstrous tyranny, mass starvation, and anarchy, then why do they have the urge to go to war?

To be honest, Churchill and Goebbels are virulent when it comes to speaking on how they’re doing the best for their country. Churchill, who had been a new Prime Minister practically,forces a new politically diverse government system on the people. He make it seem justified by explaining it was for the “public’s interest.” Promoting the war against Hitler, he burdens the people to believe that this will be terrorizing to defeat, because they’re going against something practically “demonic.” He may not state it in those exact words but he wants them to fall for this charade so they will support him and his views.Fortunately, Churchill doesn’t seem as coercive as Goebbels.Instead of a new simple government system, Goebbels chooses this heavy propaganda to enforce his emphasis on National Socialism being good for the country. Goebbels states that Bolshevism and Jewry are going to cause this deadly danger. Even though Germany has done a lot of genocide, and Goebbels seems like a control freak, the people are kind of forced to trust his views. All of the war efforts and scarified luxuries under this “peaceful” homogenous society are to support the country and keep up this powerful imagine of a united Germany. Both Goebbels and Churchill are clear that they want victory at all costs, whether or not the people feel satisfied.

Promoting the unity and pride of the country is another step of Churchill and Goebbels. It’s either all or nothing when it comes to winning, and unity is a way to strengthen the country's. In both speeches the men make sure that they amp up their country’s with a sense of pride by being optimistic. It makes both leaders seem like they're running a strong country. Goebbels stated Germany is “unwilling to bow to this danger;” he is the one who “claims the right” to call upon it; yet he provides this insight of what'd it's be like if groups like Jewry took over striking fear and chaos. It's contradictory. Churchill demands he will obtain “victory at all costs,” with certainty. He's making his intended audience feel safe and like the country is in control.

From the evidence provided  Churchill and Goebbels aren't as  powerful as they seem;  though some may disagree, it seems like promoting war is the only way they'll be looked upon as world powers. If they fail to win the war for their country then they won't be able to protect from other global tyranny.

Mach & Theo: modern interpretation

Both Machiavelli and Thoreau have the best interest for society. Though Machiavelli focused more on the prince relying on his position, he felt nearly self conscious because he focused on reactions or judgement from citizens of Florence. Thoreau was more of an optimistic thinker towards how he should react to society's issues. Between Machiavelli expressing his views on how a prince should run a country and Thoreau's voice on injustices of political figures it's clear that the general public "mass" just wants to be satisfied and safe.

Now, it seems quite ironic considering Machiavelli pondered many options of fear in order to gain authority over the oppressed. His rule is like a monarch; it's his words, his actions, or nothing at all. In Civil Disobedience, Thoreau rants against this. His era was need of a non corrupt system. But, does it matter what these systems do if it's for the citizens own good? Possibly no. In fact that's what the prince is perceived to be doing. All of his consciousness, thoughts, and actions are for the people. Morals can't be fought. In Thoreau's insight, if people can't be heard it's not a democracy.

It can be fairly difficult to satisfy the public as well. In Thoreau, it was challenging to find anyone worth trusting if they worked for the government system. Between lack of civil rights with minorities and going to an unnecessary war in Mexico nothing will be rebelled against. The gov. strikes fear as much as a prince would with restrictions, laws, and punishment. Is it necessary? It can be. It may lead towards the saftey; whether or not it's justified, these powerful figures get things accomplished; yes, with exceptions like slavery and bearing when to be man or beast when running the county play a factor.  It needs to be realized that they have authority.

No matter how unmorally unjust running what seems to be a corrupt government from a citizens point of view, or observing how sly and authoritative a prince can be with something like parsimony the public will be fine. As long as they see the "superficial apperance" there's not much to worry about in both perspectives. These officials have a duty to please the people just as their servants do to them.